IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/65pgr.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

COVID-19: Insights from Innovation Economists (with French executive summary)

Author

Listed:
  • Younes, George Abi
  • Ayoubi, Charles
  • Ballester, Omar
  • Cristelli, Gabriele
  • de Rassenfosse, Gaetan
  • Foray, Dominique
  • Gaule, Patrick
  • van den Heuvel, Matthias
  • Webster, Beth
  • Zhou, Ling

Abstract

The present document provides the take of innovation economists on the current pandemic. It is addressed to the general public and focuses on questions related to the Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) ecosystem. It does not present new research findings. Instead, it provides a reading of current real-world developments using economic reasoning and relying on existing economic research. The first part of the report explains the root causes for a general underinvestment in Research and Development (R&D), with a particular focus on vaccines. These causes include an insufficient demand for vaccines in normal times and the very characteristics of R&D. Governments can intervene to mitigate these problems, but government intervention comes with its own set of issues. We discuss three of them, namely free riding, setting research priorities, and acting on scientific knowledge. The second part discusses several aspects related to current STI policy reactions. First, we observe a sizable shift of funds towards research on SARS-CoV-2. Aren’t we wasting money by allocating so much of it on one single scientific problem? Using the concept of the ‘elasticity of science,’ we argue that we are far from a situation where additional funding would represent a waste of money. Second, we also observe an unprecedented level of cooperation among researchers but also an intense competition to find therapeutic solutions and vaccines. We seek to make sense of this apparent antonymy, highlighting how both cooperative and competitive forces might accelerate research. Third, we focus on one policy tool, namely patents, and we discuss whether the existence of patents hampers the search for a solution. We argue that it might, but we provide ways in which patents can be beneficial. They can accelerate research (such as through patent pools) or ensure greater access to innovations (such as with compulsory licensing). Fourth, we notice that the whole STI ecosystem has been rapidly refocusing on SARS-CoV-2 in a way similar to mission-oriented R&D (MOR) programs such as the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. We highlight the fundamental differences between MOR and the present situation. Today’s response is characterized by a proliferation of a wide range of innovative solutions offered by a complex set of institutions and actors with great intellectual freedom and decentralized competition. The third part of the report assesses some potential long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We firstly discuss its impact on R&D investment. We explain how innovation might be negatively affected by a prolonged economic downturn and highlight the crucial role of stimulus packages in confronting the recession. We also address the influence of the crisis on ICT, arguing that it has been a formidable catalyst for ICT adoption. Next, we focus on clean technologies, another major societal challenge besides the pandemic. There are strong reasons for why cleantech investment may suffer. However, the crisis also offers significant opportunities to accelerate the green transition. Finally, we focus on open science, in particular on open access and open data. The current crisis could be a catalyst for the adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Data Practices. The last part of the report offers some concluding thoughts. The STI policy response cannot be limited to the urgent need for ‘technological fixes.’ A second line of response involves the production of new knowledge to prevent outbreaks (ex-ante) or mitigate their effects (ex-post). Furthermore, the current crisis is a reminder that all branches of science matter. The pandemic has many facets, and a significant number of scientific disciplines can contribute to dealing with it. We conclude with a forward-looking note, arguing that the most substantial impact of the pandemic may lie outside of the public health realm or the science system. It offers a unique opportunity to adapt the set of rules that govern our society.

Suggested Citation

  • Younes, George Abi & Ayoubi, Charles & Ballester, Omar & Cristelli, Gabriele & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & Foray, Dominique & Gaule, Patrick & van den Heuvel, Matthias & Webster, Beth & Zhou, Ling, 2020. "COVID-19: Insights from Innovation Economists (with French executive summary)," SocArXiv 65pgr, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:65pgr
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/65pgr
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5e988af7d69735053bbda569/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/65pgr?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    2. Sampat, Bhaven N., 2012. "Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1729-1741.
    3. Theo S. Eicher, 1996. "Interaction Between Endogenous Human Capital and Technological Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(1), pages 127-144.
    4. Brautzsch, Hans-Ulrich & Günther, Jutta & Loose, Brigitte & Ludwig, Udo & Nulsch, Nicole, 2015. "Can R&D subsidies counteract the economic crisis? – Macroeconomic effects in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 623-633.
    5. Per Fredriksson & Eric Neumayer & Gergely Ujhelyi, 2007. "Kyoto Protocol cooperation: Does government corruption facilitate environmental lobbying?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 231-251, October.
    6. Hud, Martin & Hussinger, Katrin, 2015. "The impact of R&D subsidies during the crisis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1844-1855.
    7. Sybille van den Hove & Marc Le Menestrel & Henri-Claude de Bettignies, 2002. "The oil industry and climate change: strategies and ethical dilemmas," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 3-18, March.
    8. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    9. Michael Kremer, 2001. "Creating Markets for New Vaccines - Part I: Rationale," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 35-72, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Lewis Tracy R. & Reichman Jerome H. & So Anthony D., 2007. "The Case for Public Funding and Public Oversight of Clinical Trials," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-4, January.
    11. Peter W. Roberts, 1999. "Product innovation, product–market competition and persistent profitability in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(7), pages 655-670, July.
    12. Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder, 2015. "Preventives Versus Treatments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1167-1239.
    13. David Aristei & Alessandro Sterlacchini & Francesco Venturini, 2017. "Effectiveness of R&D subsidies during the crisis: firm-level evidence across EU countries," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 554-573, August.
    14. Paul M. Romer, 2010. "What Parts of Globalization Matter for Catch-Up Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 94-98, May.
    15. Azagra-Caro, Joaquín M. & Tijssen, Robert J.W. & Tur, Elena M. & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2019. "University-industry scientific production and the Great Recession," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 210-220.
    16. Michele Cincera & Claudio Cozza & Alexander Tübke & Peter Voigt, 2011. "Doing R&D or Not (in a Crisis), That Is the Question …," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1525-1547, February.
    17. Iain M. Cockburn & Scott Stern & Jack Zausner, 2011. "Finding the Endless Frontier: Lessons from the Life Sciences Innovation System for Energy R&D," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 113-157, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Gadi Barlevy, 2007. "On the Cyclicality of Research and Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1131-1164, September.
    19. Mowery, David C., 2010. "Military R&D and Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1219-1256, Elsevier.
    20. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2011. "Macroeconomic conditions and the determinants of commercialisation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 125-143.
    21. Daniel Sarewitz & Richard Nelson, 2008. "Three rules for technological fixes," Nature, Nature, vol. 456(7224), pages 871-872, December.
    22. Virginia Gewin, 2016. "Data sharing: An open mind on open data," Nature, Nature, vol. 529(7584), pages 117-119, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Younes, George Abi & Ayoubi, Charles & Ballester, Omar & Cristelli, Gabriele & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & Foray, Dominique & Gaule, Patrick & Pellegrino, Gabriele & van den Heuvel, Matthias & Webster, B, 2020. "COVID-19_Insights from Innovation Economists," SocArXiv b5zae, Center for Open Science.
      • Dominique Foray & Gaetan de Rassenfosse & George Abi Younes & Charles Ayoubi & Omar Ballester & Gabriele Cristelli & Matthias van den Heuvel & Ling Zhou & Gabriele Pellegrino & Patrick Gaulé & Elizab, 2020. "COVID-19: Insights from Innovation Economists," Working Papers 10, Chair of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.
    2. Isabel Busom & Jorge-Andrés Vélez-Ospina, 2021. "Subsidising innovation over the business cycle," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 773-803, July.
    3. Jutta Günther & Maria Kristalova & Udo Ludwig, 2019. "Structural stability of the research & development sector in European economies despite the economic crisis," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1415-1432, November.
    4. Ascensión Barajas & Elena Huergo & Lourdes Moreno, 2021. "The role of public loans in financing business R&D through the economic cycle," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(2), pages 505-538, July.
    5. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    6. Armand, Alex & Mendi, Pedro, 2018. "Demand drops and innovation investments: Evidence from the Great Recession in Spain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1321-1333.
    7. Agarwal, Ruchir & Gaule, Patrick, 2022. "What drives innovation? Lessons from COVID-19 R&D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    8. David Aristei & Alessandro Sterlacchini & Francesco Venturini, 2017. "Effectiveness of R&D subsidies during the crisis: firm-level evidence across EU countries," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 554-573, August.
    9. Giebel, Marek & Kraft, Kornelius, 2017. "External financing constraints and firm's innovative activities during the financial crisis," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-064, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Giebel, Marek & Kraft, Kornelius, 2018. "Bank credit supply and firm innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-011, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Teplykh, Grigorii & Galimardanov, Amal, 2017. "Modeling of innovative investment in Russian regions," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 46, pages 104-125.
    12. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    13. Garga, Vaishali & Singh, Sanjay R., 2021. "Output hysteresis and optimal monetary policy," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 871-886.
    14. Andreas Reinstaller, 2019. "Produkteinführungen österreichischer Unternehmen und Konjunkturschwankungen," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 92(3), pages 173-182, March.
    15. Andreas Reinstaller, 2022. "Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie auf die Innovationsfähigkeit von Unternehmen in Österreich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 69398, April.
    16. Zeynep Kabukcuoglu, 2019. "The cyclical behavior of R&D investment during the Great Recession," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 301-323, January.
    17. Huseyin Emre Sayici & Mehmet Fatih Ulu, 2023. "Economic Effects of R&D Supports," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 2308, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    18. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi & Jungkyu Suh, 2020. "The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 39-93.
    19. Kevin X. D. Huang & Munechika Katayama & Mototsugu Shintani & Takayuki Tsuruga, 2022. "Sticky wages in a world of ideas," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1757-1781, October.
    20. Stjepan Srhoj & Bruno Škrinjarić & Sonja Radas, 2021. "Bidding against the odds? The impact evaluation of grants for young micro and small firms during the recession," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-103, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:65pgr. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.